Machiavellianism, Job Autonomy, and Counterproductive Work Behaviouramong Indian Managers

Abstract

Christie & Gies (1970) defined Machiavellian as a person who has a cynical worldview, amoral orientation, and uses manipulative tactics to get work done in their favour. Later, Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy (2009) added new dimensions to Machiavellianism, such as seeking control over others and thriving for status for oneself. They have also developed a psychometrically sound tool named Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS) to incorporate the extended framework of Mach and to overcome the problems of existing highly cited tool Mach IV. Machiavellianism, along with narcissism and psychopathy, forms an umbrella term commonly known as Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Because of the commonness among them, they have been clubbed together as "dark triad". According to Paulhus and Williams (2002) "To varying degrees, all three entail a socially malevolent character with behaviour tendencies toward selfpromotion, emotional coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness" (p. 557). Recently, Mededov and Petrovi (2015) added sadism as a fourth dark personality, and together they are termed as Dark Tetrad. Machiavellianism or Machs are usually associated with negative outcomes. They are prone to take revenge (Nathanson, 2008), lie repeatedly (Kashy & DePaulo, 1996), are dissatisfied at work and emotionally distressed (Dahling et al., 2009), and would have high job turnover rates as compared to non Machs (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Despite these negative outcomes, researchers acknowledge its positive side as well. Rubio (2016) wrote in his blog that despite h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s. c o p m a d r i d. o rg / j wo p

The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital between Motivational Orientations and Their Organizational Consequences

“…Nevertheless, it is related to the appearance of CWBs, which seems paradoxical since worry concerns “doing things badly”, and it is assumed that acting negatively towards the company would be inconsistent with that. Those results could mean that worry can affect decision making [ 55 ] or even is related to certain Machiavellianism, seeking for the personal benefit even though it can be harmful for the organization [ 56 ]. An alternative explanation is that the protective power of hope is not enough to counter the negative impact of worry.…”

Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings: Effects of Appraisal Purpose, Scale Type, and Range Restriction

“…In validity studies, the rating sources of job performance can be the supervisors (e.g., Harris et al, 1995; Campbell and Wiernik, 2015), instructors (e.g., Berges et al, 2018), peers (e.g., Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Viswesvaran et al, 2002), and incumbents (e.g., Bang and Reio, 2017; Jyoti and Sharma, 2017; Haider et al, 2018; Rehman and Shahnawaz, 2018). This paper focuses on the interrater reliability of supervisory performance ratings as they are the most frequently used in validity studies and for performance appraisal purposes (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984; Landy and Rastegary, 1989; Viswesvaran et al, 2002; Campbell and Wiernik, 2015).…”

Corruption, Fast or Slow? Ethical Leadership Interacts With Machiavellianism to Influence Intuitive Thinking and Corruption

“…Therefore, high-Machs are more likely to act in unethical and illegal ways. For example, high-Machs are more willing to engage in spontaneous cheating ( Cooper and Peterson, 1980 ), unethical pro-organizational behavior ( Castille et al, 2018 ), counterproductive work behavior ( Rehman and Shahnawaz, 2018 ), and deviant behaviors in general ( Zagenczyk et al, 2014 ). Specifically, high-Mach followers are more likely to engage in corruption than low-Mach followers ( Zhao et al, 2016 ).…”